imported post
Now, Washington State wiretapping law, on the other hand:
You are right that privacy is not granted in many situations in public. I can't find the source right now, but I recall reading about a court ruling that held that upskirt photography is legal in public places exactly because of the aforementioned lack of right to privacy.
Do you have a source for this? The statute doesn't say anything about privacy or expectation thereof; it doesn't say that one must have an expectation of privacy in order for the protections of the statute for hold.1. Federal wiretapping laws cover PRIVATE conversations, there's no expectation of privacy in public.
Now, Washington State wiretapping law, on the other hand:
In any case, it is not correct that there is no privacy in public. Privacy does indeed exist in public in many circumstances. Near ATMs is one example; public restrooms are another. Where privacy holds is decided by a court, of course, but even the rules of thumb are not reducible to "no privacy in public".(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
You are right that privacy is not granted in many situations in public. I can't find the source right now, but I recall reading about a court ruling that held that upskirt photography is legal in public places exactly because of the aforementioned lack of right to privacy.